Given that the changes proposed to the ULA spec are in response to
IESG Discuss comments, I have not seen reasonable justification
to make any of the functional changes mentioned in this thread.
Given that, I am directing Bob to only incorporate editorial changes
where necessary.
For tho
Pekka,
At 07:40 AM 01/18/2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Haberman wrote:
We wanted the working group to review the proposed changes before a new
version was submitted.
I see no big problem with the changes, but the bullet point one of the
Thanks. Good to hear!
changes refers
Elwyn,
At 03:46 AM 01/19/2005, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Hi.
Overall this should be out there rsn.
However, there are is one point that needs clearing up in the estimation
of collision probability (S3.2.3):
In para 2 (above the formula), N is stated to be the total number of such
IDs whereas in parenth
Hi.
Overall this should be out there rsn.
However, there are is one point that needs clearing up in the estimation of
collision probability (S3.2.3):
In para 2 (above the formula), N is stated to be the total number of such
IDs whereas in parentheses after the formula N is defined to be the numbe
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:50 AM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: Bob Hinden; IPv6 WG
> Subject: Re: Proposed update to ULA Draft (-09)
>
> I support this version. Although I don't fully agree with
> the concerns expressed by some IESG members, I think this
> new version
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:41:02 -0800
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> >>>Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this
> >>>issue to be addressed somewhere else.
> >>
> >>In my personal view, this would be the best course for now. Later on it
> >>would be go
Brian,
Or, to get this ID moving, remove both suggestions, and leave this
issue to be addressed somewhere else.
In my personal view, this would be the best course for now. Later on it
would be good to get feedback on how people deploy ULAs in operational
networks. For example, this might be a g
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Brian Haberman wrote:
We wanted the working group to review the proposed changes before a new
version was submitted.
I see no big problem with the changes, but the bullet point one of the
changes refers to was this:
The default behavior of exterior routing protocol sessio
Bob Hinden wrote:
Mark,
Combining your two emails.
At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to an
IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4
connection though)
For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site u
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:33:08 -0600
"Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Part of the problem is "site" has been overloaded to mean "administrative
> domain", whereas the common meaning is a single physical location. Neither
> makes sense to me in the 09 text, though.
>
Maybe it would
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mark Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 14:49
Subject:
On Jan 17, 2005, at 14:57, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to
an
IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4
connection though)
For l
Thus spake "Bob Hinden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
> >(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to an
> >IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4
> >connection though)
> >
> >For link-state IGPs, it is suggested t
Mark,
Combining your two emails.
At 04:40 AM 01/17/2005, Mark Smith wrote:
(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to an
IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4
connection though)
For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site utilizing ULA
pr
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:10:34 +1030
Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what my opinion is regarding which addressing model would
> be best, and maybe there isn't one "best" one. I suppose both of them
> could be suggested, with the caveats of each of them described.
> Possibly,
Hi Bob, Brian,
I'm a bit concerned about this suggestion, in section 4.1, Routing :
(as a side note, this is from Rev 8, the nokia web site resolves to an
IPv6 address, I don't seem to be able to get to it via my 6to4
connection though)
For link-state IGPs, it is suggested that a site utilizi
I support this version. Although I don't fully agree with
the concerns expressed by some IESG members, I think this
new version is quite OK, and the quickest way make ULAs
available to networks that need them.
Brian
Brian Haberman wrote:
IPv6 WG,
In order to resolve the last IESG discuss comment
17 matches
Mail list logo
